By johnnatlanta

January 31, 2006 09:05 AM | Link to this

MacMansions are being built because that is what the customer wants. If we want Atlanta to continue to grow and attract new families the housing industry must provide the type of housing the customer wants.

MacMansions will not be built if they do not sell. It’s just that simple.

Perhaps there is the perception that MacMansions reduce the value of the smaller houses in the neighborhood. But in the long run the value will only increase of all the houses in the neighborhood. Check out a neighborhood where there is no new construction going on. These neighborhoods are not appreciating and in some cases are crime ridden.

The Atlanta City Council has the authority to call a halt to the building of the larger homes but when it does this, the Council must accept the consequences of those actions and they must be accountable to those who elected them. When growth here slows to a crawl watch how quickly the Council lays the blame somewhere else.

MacMansions are what the customer wants.

By Charlotte

January 31, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

There are at least two sides to every story. We built an infill house, went through a neighborhood approval process and the neighborhood welcomed and thanked us, and as a result others took an opportunity to build and property values continue to rise. Please provide true examples of where infill causes property values to fall. Infill guidelines should require infill structures to meet or exceed all applicable building codes as well as infill compatibility. The two can coexist. Be careful what you wish for and remember you can always live in a gated community. There you will find covenants to specifically instruct you on what to do with the property you own!

By Van

January 31, 2006 09:35 AM | Link to this

While infill housing does cause some problems, we have to respect the rights of folks to build a house, that meets all applicable building and zoning codes, to the specifications they want. After all, it is their land and money involved.

By neighbor

January 31, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

Trends and Analyses of Residential Teardowns and their Affects on Neighboring Property Sales Prices in Arlington Heights, Illinois

In Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Urban Planning and Policy By Andrzej Smiarowski April 2005

Summary Points

• The regression analysis for the teardown data from 2000 to 2004 have shown that properties (excluding newly built) that are located in close proximity to teardowns (about 1 city block) have lost in market value of about 24% compared to a market value of similar properties located farther away from the teardowns.

• Existing properties that are larger than 10,000 square feet might gain price increase by as much as 5% compared to properties below that size. This is obvious, because developers may tear the house down, then subdivide the lot, and build two new houses.

• Developers may be able to pressure owners of the older homes into selling their properties at a significantly lower price. Data from this project suggest this may be the case in Arlington Heights.

• This project was conducted with a data consisting of 11,696 single-family properties that were sold between the years 1983 and 2004.

• The teardown trend seems to be increasing with each year. Many long-term town residents say that affordable housing is often the victim of the teardown trend, because smaller, modest houses are being razed to make room for over $750,000 homes, often built by speculators.

• Comparing to 1983, the houses increased in the sales price steadily till the year 1991, where there was a significant slow down in increase.

These are points taken from a study conducted using Hedonic modeling, a statistical model used to identify factors or influences on the price of goods based on the notion that price is based on both intrinsic characteristic and external factors (Scafidi, 1998).

Data gathered through the Multiple Listing Service and DeKalb County Tax records of streets with similar size houses in the same school district indicates: • Many “teardowns� are bought without ever going on the open market at a lower price than a house re-selling as a home.

• When a neighborhood is undergoing extensive building, owners’ selling options are limited, most often to selling as a teardown.

• When a homeowner becomes “sandwiched� between new houses, their options are reduced.

• While prices continue to appreciate in neighborhoods without demolition activity, prices in affected neighborhoods stagnate or depreciate.

• Housing diversity is being eliminated.

By David

January 31, 2006 10:18 AM | Link to this

It isn’t about property values; it is about maintaining the character of the neighborhoods. I don’t want my walkable charming neighborhood turned into Alpharetta.

By ASA

January 31, 2006 10:19 AM | Link to this

The whole situation surrounding McMansions is puzzling to me. Imagine taking a home that you bought for $150,000 to $200,000 - tearing it down - and, then building a Georgia version of the Taj Mahal. Ok - so you got the money, you want to build something close in - why don’t you go ride around West Paces Ferry to see if one of those fixer-uppers is up for sale? Or Lullwater? Or Smokerise? If the area where the transition is taking place is generally in bad condition - maybe it’s a wise use of the land - but, why change the character of a functioning, well-taken care-of neighborhood? Just ‘cause you can? Maybe it’s America’s fixation with throw away everything …

By Tyler Smith

January 31, 2006 12:49 PM | Link to this

Whether the ‘McMansions’ hurt the property values of nearby homes is irrelevant in my opinion. What bothers me is how these monstrous homes insult the tradition (for lack of a better word) of urban neighborhoods. A smaller home represents a simple life, and big houses are not only hideous, but discourage neighbor interaction. If any company were to try to build one of those houses in my neighborhood, I would lock myself inside and not come out. Call me what you want, I don’t care.

By B Miller

January 31, 2006 02:26 PM | Link to this

The infill housing you are finally seeing in town is what has been happening in Roswell for years now! We didn’t want it either in our older neighborhoods, but guess what? They’re doing it anyway. They mow over ranch homes on 1-3 acres and put up as many $600,000-$800,000 as they can get away with! Yes, it raises property values in your area and changes the small town feel you once had. But, how can you stop it? Offer anyone the right amount of money and they will sell you their home in a minute and move on to another area with all that cash in hand. Zoning issues should be put before the neighbors before builders get the go ahead to build out of character for that area. Also, they need to put more weight on what the homeowners want … not just what the developers want!!!

By Jan

January 31, 2006 03:59 PM | Link to this

Get real! The only reason someone would build an infill house MacMansion adjacent to smaller ones, is the customer can’t afford to build in neighborhoods with houses of comparable size. We need to stop trying to impress folks we don’t even know, and/or don’t like anyway.

By John

January 31, 2006 04:21 PM | Link to this

I don’t know if McMansions hurt the property values of lesser sized homes, but I cannot see how they would improve the value either … they are not like properties, so why would the demand for my 1200-square-foot brick ranch be more after the McMansions take over? The study cited by Neighbor makes sense to me. Why would someone want to buy my modest house which is dwarfed by a McMansion? And JohnINAtlanta sounds like a builder to me. I’m sure Atlanta wants to attract families in, but with these houses starting at around $600,000 what type of families are these going to be?

By Sidney

January 31, 2006 04:45 PM | Link to this

McMansion is a pejorative term that reveals the subjective nature of what is up for legislation. At the heart of the legislation is a reaction to something considered ugly or inappropriate by someone not involved in the transaction. The proper comment at the next city council is that old familiar from the elementary schoolyard: “Mind your own beeswax, Mister.”

We have zoning regulations. Why don’t we use them and reduce the number of variances granted? Nothing will depress property values faster than a sense in the market that property rights are not respected. Mary Norwood should require that her own neighborhood be under the restrictions she is offering to “protect” other neighborhoods.

By Harriert Harris

January 31, 2006 04:57 PM | Link to this

Isn’t our good mayor’s opposition to what are now called Mcmansions just a bit hypocritical? She favors diversity in other kinds of housing e.g.a mandatory percent of space reserved for low-income tenants. What is an “established” neighborhood? At one time, Manhattan was home to grazing sheep. When is a neighborhood “established” - never allowed to change? What if the owners of sheep had demanded that no housing should be allowed to intrude on their lovely rural neighborhood?

By Drew

January 31, 2006 07:27 PM | Link to this

Ms. Norwood’s use of the “M” word is typical of politicians of her kind: if the argument has no substance and isn’t based on fact, use epithets to generate interest. Morningside is experiencing the rebirth that has been awaited for decades,and Mayor Franklin and her cohort, subverting democracy with a descriminating moratorium, drive a stake through property-owners’ rights, while pandering to large developers. The ecclecticism of in-town is threatened when style police like Ms. Norwood grab for power. The AJC should expose the lack of hard facts in her arguments, and publish a response that espouses inclusion over exclusion, property rights over bureaucratic meddling, and embraces diversity and ecclecticism over Ms. Norwood’s notion of government’s policing of what is and is not stylish.

By Mary Brown

January 31, 2006 11:29 PM | Link to this

My daughter goes to a center in Paulding Couny for the handicapped. I am not satisfied wih the support coordinaion agency doing support coordination in our county but am told I have to pick someone from that agency for my daughter. Why can’t I pick from any of the agencies that do support coordination? I keep hearing about this self-determination and letting the person pick their support coordinator. Any idea why not?

By rob

February 1, 2006 07:58 AM | Link to this

“Harming” someone’s property values has been going on since development began. It is an invalid argument. Race was once used as an argument for this type of jealousy. It only seems to be an issue when the upper crust starts to get their sunlight blocked or view changed. Example: you have a rural nice cabin on 1 acre next to a 100 acre horse pasture. The owner of the horse pasture sells his land and they build 400 cracker boxes on the 100 acres, ruining your “view” and “property value” while making a “dirty greedy” profit on their “own” property they “worked thier whole life to own.” Proper development of school, road systems or infrastructure is ignored for rural or subruban areas while city areas are more likely to have the systems to support the smaller developments they are fighting. 1 “Mcmansion” in the city causes far fewer problems than 400 cracker box houses in a rural area with 10 persons in each on a two lane road with no red lights, etc. Everyone could join this pity party if this was an acceptable reason for denying other thier rights to their own property.

By Ranch Lite

February 1, 2006 08:53 AM | Link to this

I agree with those who say government shouldn’t act as “style police”, but it is wise to work with the system and make it work for you. Take Druid Hills for example. We are protected by guidelines administered by DeKalb County Historic Preservation Commission. The Druid Hills Homeowners Association (DHHA) fights the good fight to make sure residents are informed and the guidelines adhered to. This is not just for historic mansions that originally populated the area. Even our lowly early ’60s ranch had to go before the Commission before we could make a relatively minor addition. The members pretty much sniffed at our proposal and rubber stamped it so they could get on to the more interesting historic stuff, but we didn’t mind. It had been reviewed previously by the staff and found to be within the guidelines and posing no harm to our neighbors properties or the character of the neighborhood. I appreciate the efforts of the Commission and the DHHA because they also insure that my neighborhoods pose no harm to my property. Folks don’t always agree with their decisions and that is to be expected. But all-in-all, it sure is better than having no recourse when your next door neighbor goes off the deep end decides to make his home a showplace of previously unimagined style and/or proportions.

By Van

February 1, 2006 09:49 AM | Link to this

Ranch Lite, I do applaud the homeowners associations that take their jobs seriously, but when they do not, it is not the job of government to take over and say what is OK and what is not. This is not the city’s job. The city or county has zoning laws that must be obeyed, but beyond that, nothing.

By MCH

February 1, 2006 10:01 AM | Link to this

As a Va-Highlands neighbor I agree with what Sidney, Harriert and Drew have to say and feel that there are many other people who believe in private property rights and feel our opinions have been under represented. I think it is sad for the families that have moved into these new homes and neighborhoods only to have their homes attacked and publicly ridiculed. Not all people are like John who stated that “these houses starting out at around $600,000 what type of families are these going to be?� To all the new neighbors I welcome you and your families in whatever home you live in.

By cd

February 1, 2006 10:05 AM | Link to this

McMansions are worth less in an incomptable neighborhood, and so are the little houses next to it.

What is the value of a McMansion? I personally would feel embarassed and obnoxious to live in one. I think prospective buyers would feel the same way. The value of a McMansion has to be diminished in an incomptable neighborhood.

The title of the forum is “Do McMansions hurt the property values of nearby homes?” The answer to this question is not an opinion. The study the lady quoted at the beginning states “The regression analysis for the teardown data from 2000 to 2004 have shown that properties (excluding newly built) that are located in close proximity to teardowns (about 1 city block) have lost in market value of about 24% compared to a market value of similar properties located farther away from the teardowns.” That’s the answer.

By Carlton Wyatt

February 1, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

To those who squawk the rhetoric about “it’s my property I can build what I want”, I would ask would you enjoy having homes on either side of YOU built right up to the property line so you can barely walk beside YOUR house? Would you want homes built on either side of you so tall and massive that your home is now continually in shadow with no sunlight and your lawn and trees and gardens now wither and die? Would you enjoy having your property taxes double or triple or more simply because your neighbors are building massive castles next door? Would you enjoy being practically forced to leave the home you’ve enjoyed for decades because you can no longer afford to pay the taxes on it due to the “infill” going on in your neighborhood?